Computational English

This
is based on my site, Computational English which uses techniques to desseminate
texts hermeneutically (interpret them). The first technique uses the text to
construct a philosophical argument (see the site). The site is developmental,
hence the scripts cannot be relied upon as perfect. The "essays"
produced by the scripts only connect the points in the argument. A real essay
would have to be written separately from the essays.

Will Computational English be like a calculator, as in people should understand the theory before relying on it? Advantages: will allow focus on more material, as more data can be analysed (information would have to be presented in such a way as to allow reviewing in the best way possible). User will be able to program using Conglish's (Computational English) features (write essay, fill out grammar to recognise sentences with the same meaning, compressing the program e.g. 2 identical conclusions compressed to 1 conclusion, with reasons from both attached to it, action to take based on arriving at a conclusion e.g. return a telephone call, cook a meal, clean up or write a poem).

If
intertextuality is defined with a "functional unit" of forming a
conclusion from two sentences, one from each text, the first technique could be
a possible solution. For example, given the input from sensors "The baby
has finished the meal" and the secondary text "When the baby has
finished the meal, read to him/her" (and another with the baby's name) the
conclusion could be "Read to Tom".

Do
we inhabit a three-dimensional universe floating in a four-dimensional space?
What if the extra dimensions required by string theory were not curled up
and unobservably small, but unfurled and vast, extending forever? Could
an invisible universe only a tiny fraction of an inch apart in another
dimension explain phenomena that we see today in our world? A physicist may unravel the mysteries of the universe's hidden dimensions. One
solution could be to describe an interval of data, concluding with a pointer to
infinity.

Radical
difference is seeing two sides of a debate clearly. One should choose a side.
Once finished, the opposition between the two sides represents the radical
difference. The
diagram represents the two perspectives on the debate being represented as rays
from the centre of the circle.

Order in Conglish - Concerns how to determine the temporality of an event given a text.

One
of the limitations of the first technique is its "duck-pond" quality,
that is sentences to form the basis of an interpretation are chosen based on
the arguments, not vice versa. Another problem this brings up is whether there
will be exceptions to the argument made if the argument is chosen based on
whether other parts of the text satisfy it. This can also be dealt with by
using "objections", that is if a particular sentence negates a
reason, it can cause an ontology to fail and the reason to become bad.

Another
limitation is the lack of checking of order of sentences from the text. This
can be dealt with by including at its most simple, indices in sentences and
rules requiring inequalities between sentences. e.g. 1- The painter slipped on
the ladder, 2- The ambulance arrived promptly.

Dereconstruction,
another variant of computational hermeneutics I thought of reconstructs a
narrative in a representation for reasoning about and querying. The first technique
can take a text, and after an interpretation has been prepared (this would be
necessary to write as part of the program which would write an interpretation)
would test whether the conclusion in response to a question with its reasons
was supported by the text, and output the interpretation.

The
first technique can simulate "Kolmogorov-type" writing of programs to
interpret texts.

Once
texts have been interpreted (using hierarchies of arguments with the text as
the child nodes and the main conclusion as the root) interpretations of other
texts can be merged with it enabling it to be applied to different texts in the
future. For example, synonyms can be added for words in a sentence to create
possible new interpretations. Also, sentences with new grammars (synogrammars)
can be added in disjunction to sentences.

Derivability - The
first technique can handle two directions between term or sentence and
definition. This allows meaning to be worked out from context.

1.
Interpolation

The
program can interpolate from definition to sentence (2 to 1), i.e. work out the
sentence from a given set of definitions.

1.
Samantha ate the biscuits (initially unknown)

2a.
The biscuits were on the table before Samantha came into the room

b.
They weren't there after she left *

c.
It was after school, and time for a snack. *

*
assumed to be in same section as 2a, i.e. also referring to Samantha eating the
biscuits.

In
the first technique, order is usually from 1 to 2, but there may be variables
that have either any or values from a list.

2.
Extrapolation. Finding the definition from a sentence

The
program can also extrapolate from sentence to definition (1 to 2), i.e. given
similar sentences can work out the definition.

There
are three cases so far, and may be more in the future.

a.
Synonyms

Given:

1.
The purse was lost at lunchtime

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
The purse was left in on a seat.

b.
No one returned it.

the
program can calculate:

1.
The wallet was lost at lunchtime

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
The wallet was left in on a seat.

b.
No one returned it.

b.
Synogrammars (sentences with the same meaning)

Given:

1.
We received the books we ordered.

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
We filled in the order form for the books

b.
We sent it in with the money.

the
program can calculate:

1.
The books we ordered arrived.

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
We filled in the order form for the books

b.
We sent it in with the money.

c.
Same base word

Given:

1.
We constructed the argument

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
Constructing is writing.

b.
We wrote the argument.

the
program can calculate:

1.
We deconstructed the argument

2.
(initially unknown)

a.
Constructing is writing.

b.
De-something is taking apart.

c.
We took apart the argument.

The Science of Crossing Over - The
first technique is limited in terms of a content-filled framework for analysing
texts cognitively. The "cognitive science" perspective in
Computational English should deal with critical questions arising from events
and interchanges between characters, and changes within individual characters.
Information from such analysis may be for example abductive conclusions about
what a character has done, or deductive conclusions about what a character is
or will be doing. Naturally, this may apply to real-life situations. There are
air-traffic control systems which analyse dialogue for example. Character
interrelationships are one of the important points examine critically as they
give the "human side" of the events in the play.

A New Logic Reflecting Language or Natural Logic - The
symbols for all, there exists, ->, <->, ^, v and ~ (not) need to be
updated to account for language's semantic properties. For example, there exist
3 (the symbol there exists! means there exists 1). The symbol ~avb could
represent a although b because "a although" implies ~a and
"although b" implies b, hence ~avb.

There
may be advantages to choosing to study Computational English in Philosophy
rather than computer science. There has been much work done on the analytic
(computational) and continental (hermeneutic) areas and finding the interface
would be ideal in Philosophy. Critically examining literature from the
cognitive science perspective may yield representations such as oppositions,
hierarchies and Derridean bugs which may be introduced into the system to test
for weaknesses and find new areas of interest. Also, processual issues may be
examined, such as form’s interrelationship with content, Nietzschean-type
systems created for analysing and analysis and a framework for analysis may be
developed.

Computational
Philosophical English would differ from PCE in that it would be studied in the
computer science department. It would look through a philosophical lens at
English followed by a computational lens. For example, it may look at
complexity or computational analysis issues around questions in Philosophy and
Literature, which may still be relevant in PCE although a single trajectory
(from determining the system to be programmed to analysis of the computer
program) would be pursued in it.

Philosophical
Computational other areas may be brought up on some of the other blogs.

The
relation between content and the lenses used to see it among different areas of
study is likely to be of interest in the future. Psychological research into
cultural phenomena, for example the type Shakespeare is based on may function
to query real life scenarios similar to those in plays, used to critically
examine the plot of plays using mathematical modelling and prediction, and
graph findings using psychologically attuned representations such as timelines,
character interrelationships or language analysis.

After
reading a page on Agnès van Rees, the Director of the project Characteristics
of Argumentative Discourse found using the Yahoo! search criteria of
"narratology, contention and characteristics", I became interested in
resolution of differences of opinion in everyday discussion.

This
gave me the following ideas:

Developmental
Conglish, i.e. how if necessary raw evidence needs to be refined and shaped
into an argument

Anna:
But doesn't it rely on all texts following a particular format - How can the
program cope with real variation? it assumes these texts are based in logic or
reason. Are they?

Some
features allow greater variation in Computational English, while the program is
limited to rational principles. In theory it could detect contradictions and
recognise abstract, metaphorical or other forms. Synonyms and synogrammars
(grammars with the same meaning) substituted for words and phrases allow for a
different form. Clauses in sentences can be substituted, allowing more
variation. If two sentences are used where one would normally be used, the
program can integrate them into a single sentence. There are rules for
selecting sentences as evidence, like order and causality. I am writing a paper
on variation in Computational English. I can let you know when it is available.

One can tell the difference between two time intervals with a lower ratio more easily,
e.g. 15 and 20 minutes rather than 20 and 25 minutes.

Grouping ideas together

• Ratios

• wall to house on two sides

• window to wall and wall to house

• Grouping parts of literature together

• way of thinking, if two men meet, should one help (if the other one will help cure his mother or if they will pay him money) or kill the other one (if he will usurp the throne or try to kill him first)o

In a binary opposition, one will be stronger. This is because one starts at it (it is the origin). The contention is exploring the relationship/directionality/methodology between two fundamental objects which have a relation.